The Voynich Ninja

(22-04-2024, 10:32 PM)tavie Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Your assumption that I asked it in order to denigrate Rich is wrong, as is your assumption that I asked it as part of advancing the authenticity cause.  .

I don't assume that you in particular have any intent to denigrate Rich, but as you yourself observed "this thread has a strong adversarial current", and that does seem to be the only explanation for some of the impeded logic in some people's comments in the thread. I apologize if I swept you into a comment that only applied to others.

I had also said "I just honestly can't conceive of how to break the logic down any further to make it easier to comprehend" but, in fact I think I did manage a much better explanation in a later comment. And Rich further improved it in both clarity and succinctness. So you might prefer those explanations; they deal much more directly with just your question of falsifiability.

The translation of the various (modern, not classical) Latin letters is of interest by itself. I consider it off-topic here. and may start a new thread about that.

Also humans have made several different translations of the same letters, and I strongly suspect that, if they are offered to different AI, you will also get different answers.

I have had major and surprising issues with Google Translate (which is also based on deep learning since 2016 or so), and will never trust it. There are some interesting ways to check the result.

Before this thread goes deeper and deeper into a rabbit hole, it may be good to take a step back and apply some common sense.

When an argument can be reduced to: "it is so because I say so", the whole argument should be ignored.
It takes a good amount of stepping back, but quite a lot of Voynich theories of all possible natures can be reduced to this.

There should be some evidence.
Circumstantial evidence can be used but can also be abused in order to mislead.

When all circumstantial evidence offered also allows for an alternative explanation, then it may still amount to nothing. The strength of the evidence matters.

(22-04-2024, 10:28 PM)tavie Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.

(22-04-2024, 12:07 AM)proto57 Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.The idea that those who already think the Voynich proven genuine have already, by doing so, declared it falsifiable.

I know they would (or should) say it is falsifiable, but I was interested in what you would say.  I agree with you that if someone thinks with certainty that the modern forgery theory is false, then they must also agree it is falsifiable.

(22-04-2024, 12:07 AM)proto57 Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.... It does not matter what you think I would say, because you have already declared the Modern Forgery theory false, and therefore, declared the theory falsifiable...

...It can't be both ways, i.e, declared falsifiable, and at the same time, unfalsifiable, based on anything... let alone, what one imagines I may or may not say in the future. It is one or the other.

Rich, I hadn't declared your theory false.  I would like to have that kind of confidence but I don't.  If I had declared it as false, then as you say, I wouldn't have asked if it was falsifiable.  And I am not expert in the relevant matters in any way that would allow me to declare it false myself.  I don't have Lisa's expertise in paelography and medieval manuscripts; I don't have Rene's in the radio-carbon dating or the historical provenance or the limitations of Voynich's access to the correspondence in question.  All I can do is place a high weight on their expertise whilst not completely forgetting that experts can make mistakes, and following the logic, evidence, and credibility of the discussion as best I can without the specialist knowledge.  And while I don't want the manuscript to be a forgery, I also have an interest in not wasting even more time than I already have on something that is later found out to be a forgery.

I hadn't declared your theory was certainly unfalsifiable either but I have said that when I first asked the question, I was getting that impression from the discussion. And it grew in the next couple of days.  I know technically even an unfalsifiable theory could still be true but in practice it loses a lot of credibility for me, at least when I lack the expertise to judge it on other levels.  So I asked to see if that impression of unfalsifiability was unjustified.  But when many of the responses I've got are on the lines of challenging the rival theory or saying I'm trying to discredit you, rather than confirming consistent conditions for falsifiability, it strengthens rather than corrects that impression.

Well thank you for clarifying all your thoughts and reasoning on this. I guess it comes down to two things, then: One, trusting the judgment of others: If someone wants to know Modern Forgery is falsifiable, they already know that it is: If they accept that it has been proven false.

Two, on the other hand, is they have not decided if it is false or not, and do not accept the judgment of others on the matter: Then they would have to decide, for themselves, if anything could convince them it was false. If not, then it is not falsifiable, if yes, then it is.

I suppose I am case two, because I do not think it has been proven false, and also, I know I do have situations in which I would consider it proven false. So, to me, in my opinion, it is falsifiable.

The funny and frustrating situation arose, here, which was a sort of mash-up of both: People who already considering Modern Forgery proven false, and therefore, falsifiable, were assuming that I would never accept any evidence (despite my protestations), and therefore, it was unfalsifiable. It was a logically impossible set of circumstances, difficult to unravel.

But as I said, if anyone was genuinely curious as to what I would consider proof that the Voynich manuscript was genuine, and old, I did list those. This thread is sooooo long now, so I've had trouble finding that list just now: But basically, it would be these: A reference that is incontrovertibly describing the Voynich, and is provably old, and clearly out of reach of Voynich or anyone. Or, if translated, Voynich content which is too perfectly flawless to have been invented later: Forgers always leave "tells". Or, content in the text which Voynich could not have known about, because what is described in the text was discovered after 1912: Not this, but for an example of what I mean here: Say, a description of the contents of King Tut's Tomb, which was not uncovered until 1921.

But something about what you said about needing expert opinion to help you make this decision: This is an interesting facet of this whole "Listen to the Experts"... or not... discussion. Kinda from the other side, the way you put it. You are the case of someone who would really want to hear what the experts say, in that it may help you decide what the Voynich really is. But you have essentially the same problem as everyone, because virtually all the experts disagree with one another. So how do you decide who to pick? But then, the mere fact that you HAVE to choose really negates the value of whatever you are left with, I think, because again, it is you who actually has decided who's opinion to accept.

I mean, it comes down to the same problem as anyone: You have to judge who to listen to, and who to reject. It would be like defusing a bomb, and three bomb disposal experts tell each tell you to cut a different wire, or you will be blown to Hell. One says cut the red, the other, blue, and the third, yellow. What that means is that you have to listen to all three, their knowledge, experience, thier records of not getting people blown to Hell (or who lost the fewest). And then... guess what? In the end, frantically needing to cut a wire, you still have to pick one of those experts, yourself.

But you haven't really picked anyone. What you have actually done is listened to everything they all told you, and then made up your own mind. And that is really what everyone does, and I do, and is the point here. So even in your situation, that you genuinely and honestly are looking for guidance toward "the truth of the matter", and not simply wanting to support any personal bias or pre-conception, you STILL have to decide for yourself. We all are doing that, I mean, anyway, and you are in the same boat as all of us. So that is what you will probably have to do: Listen to everyone, learn everything, then decide what you think the Voynich is. There is really no other way to do it, and nobody, really, does it any other way, because it would be impossible.

Luckily no bomb will go off if you make a mistake, in our case.

(23-04-2024, 12:53 AM)ReneZ Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Before this thread goes deeper and deeper into a rabbit hole, it may be good to take a step back and apply some common sense.

When an argument can be reduced to: "it is so because I say so", the whole argument should be ignored.
It takes a good amount of stepping back, but quite a lot of Voynich theories of all possible natures can be reduced to this.

There should be some evidence.
Circumstantial evidence can be used but can also be abused in order to mislead.

When all circumstantial evidence offered also allows for an alternative explanation, then it may still amount to nothing. The strength of the evidence matters.

Hi Rene: You wrote, "When an argument can be reduced to: "it is so because I say so", the whole argument should be ignored."

I agree absolutely. Which is why my constant attempt to couch my opinions AS opinions, and not as fact. Stating one's own opinions as though they were factual, declaring things absolutes when they are unknown, or undecided, speculative opinions, would be akin to saying "because I say so". And it is also why I expend so very much time and effort in pointing out to others those cases where things are stated by others as though they have been settled, when they are anything but.

About circumstantial evidence: That is all we all have to work with, outside of C14 and an ink test, and a smattering more. Nothing more but that. Claiming anything outside of those rises above "circumstantial" in nature would be incorrect, and misleading, and should not be done.

So we are in a rare state of perfect agreement. Yeah!

Rich.

Hi Rich,

 I wonder if you have any thoughts on folio You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.? Why did the scribe leave some free space at the top left of folio You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. and at the top right of folio You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.? Why did he did not leave out the areas with wrinkles instead? In my opinion, the answer is that when the scribe wrote the text, the parchment was still fresh and curled and therefore without wrinkles. Only after the scribe wrote the text the curled parchment was pressed flat over a longer period of time, resulting in the wrinkles we see today.

There are also some other folios with wrinkles, such as folio 114 and folio 116. In my eyes there is also no doubt that the holes on folio You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. did develop after the text was written.

Don't these observations indicate that as the scribe wrote the text, the parchment was in a different state from what it is today?

(23-04-2024, 02:54 AM)Torsten Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Hi Rich,

 I wonder if you have any thoughts on folio You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.? Why did the scribe leave some free space at the top left of folio You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. and at the top right of folio You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.? Why did he did not leave out the areas with wrinkles instead? In my opinion, the answer is that when the scribe wrote the text, the parchment was still fresh and curled and therefore without wrinkles. Only after the scribe wrote the text the curled parchment was pressed flat over a longer period of time, resulting in the wrinkles we see today.

There are also some other folios with wrinkles, such as folio 114 and folio 116. In my eyes there is also no doubt that the holes on folio You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. did develop after the text was written.

Don't these observations indicate that as the scribe wrote the text, the parchment was in a different state from what it is today?

Hi, Torsten: I took a look, as closely as the scans allow, and can give you my thoughts on what you observe:

1) I am not so sure that we know that the lettering is not going over those wrinkles, and avoiding them to some extent. They would have to be pulled open to see if the ink is inside and underneath them, too.

2) Like in one case, it looks as though the lettering sort of tapered downwards, following a wrinkle:

[attachment=8454]

3) In other places, it looks as though the lettering may be affected by the wrinkle, lighter or darker where it comes against the wrinkles.

So if the lettering ink is found under the wrinkles after unfolding the wrinkle, and the wrinkles are known to be old, and impossible to form in modern times (in a 100 year old parchment manuscript), then it could be evidence of old, and therefore genuine. One check might be to look at the original photostats, made very close to 1912, to be sure they are already there. But also, if the letter ink is not found under the wrinkles, then it might imply the opposite, that old vellum was used (genuine or not). But I think it needs to be studied in more detail.

That's all I gots.

[attachment=8455]
On page You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. / 79v it can be seen a little better.

This also leads me to ask why he takes his book apart and puts it together incorrectly.
Example: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. has water damage and has warped. You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. does not have this. You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. has the same damage and is warped.
Why would someone do that?

And if I then look at all the characteristics, I only get one result.

1. why the forgery. His wife was already known. Put her reputation on the line?
2. returns stolen books although already paid for. (question of character).
3. mention battlements (Italy) and German text, plus 3 crowns. Presumably Habsburg. Risk of arousing mistrust.
4. wormholes, traces of eating. Forgery, but how?
5. wooden cover for the worms missing. Re-tanning with leather or wood.
6. book taken apart and put together incorrectly (sequence).
7. heavy wear and water damage. Reduced yield and sales opportunities.
8. historical process.
9. c-14 analysis ca. 1400-1440.
10. no knowledge of the age of the parchment at the time of purchase. Lottery for the drawings.
11. writes and destroys known names. (Tepenece). Loss of value?
12. invents new script and possible text. With different writing styles.
13. everything for a poorly preserved notebook or study book.
and more.....

(23-04-2024, 03:30 PM)Aga Tentakulus Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.This also leads me to ask why he takes his book apart and puts it together incorrectly.
Example: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. has water damage and has warped. You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. does not have this. You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. has the same damage and is warped.
Why would someone do that?

And if I then look at all the characteristics, I only get one result.

1. why the forgery. His wife was already known. Put her reputation on the line?
2. returns stolen books although already paid for. (question of character).
3. mention battlements (Italy) and German text, plus 3 crowns. Presumably Habsburg. Risk of arousing mistrust.
4. wormholes, traces of eating. Forgery, but how?
5. wooden cover for the worms missing. Re-tanning with leather or wood.
6. book taken apart and put together incorrectly (sequence).
7. heavy wear and water damage. Reduced yield and sales opportunities.
8. historical process.
9. c-14 analysis ca. 1400-1440.
10. no knowledge of the age of the parchment at the time of purchase. Lottery for the drawings.
11. writes and destroys known names. (Tepenece). Loss of value?
12. invents new script and possible text. With different writing styles.
13. everything for a poorly preserved notebook or study book.
and more.....

Hi, Aga: You know I always enjoy discussing these things, and giving my (alternative) opinions on them. I've inserted some links for more details on my views:

1. why the forgery. His wife was already known. Put her reputation on the line?

I do think You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.to create the manuscript, maybe even to appeal to her, which it did in the end. I and others have noted that many of the things seen and suspected in the manuscript are reflective of her interests and writings, such as botany, colors, South American cultures... she even wrote of a numerical cipher in The Gadfly. And more. But why the risk, as you say? Well people take huge risks with the hope of gain, every day. They risk their lives, reputations, and the reputations of their families, sometimes for the smallest possible reward. So when people ask questions like this, the answer is really found in the history of all humanity. But in Voynich's case, his reputation had been plateauing since his famous sale of incunabula to the British Library, while the reputation of Ethel was soaring. I think part of the reason to create this was to "catch up" to her, to match her fame. If that was the goal, it worked... his name, in most circles, has even surpassed her, as the Greatest Bookseller in History.

2. returns stolen books although already paid for. (question of character).

It was the practice at the time, as much a business/reputation one, as much as an ethical one, to always return any books to customers "no questions asked". This avoided negative publicity. This is well known, and even described by Milicent Sowerby in her chapter about Voynich. I don't know the exact incident you are referring to, but I do not feel it is an indication of character, or ethics, to do this. It is simply good business.

3. mention battlements (Italy) and German text, plus 3 crowns. Presumably Habsburg. Risk of arousing mistrust.

I don't fully understand your point here, sorry. But you bring up "Hapsburg": Years ago, before the C14 results, I noted that the You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. root looks much like the Habsburg crest. I was told it was far too new for the Voynich (Tail wagging the dog). In fact, in a recent video, a Voynich researcher, who believes the Voynich old, and genuine, casually You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.. I do think that this, like much of the iconography in the Voynich, is anachronistic. But these things are quickly forgotten, after being noted. So the Voynich avoids "mistrust" by this effect. Its paradigm is self healing.

4. wormholes, traces of eating. Forgery, but how

Of course we discussed at length our differing views on this, in this thread, so I won't reiterate mine, here.

5. wooden cover for the worms missing. Re-tanning with leather or wood.

Yes the new wooden cover: Tested and agree on being far more modern than the rest of the manuscript, and then this curiosity is dismissed as being "added later". This is a common effect: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.. But if it cannot have been added later, then it is said to be not what it looks like.

6. book taken apart and put together incorrectly (sequence).

Well there is You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view., at least to one location much earlier than 1912. I think this may be part of the reason he edited and reordered it. You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. is that the Voynich was first created to look like it came from the Court of Rudolf II, and that Voynich changed his mind on this, and shifted to a Roger Bacon authorship, which would have been far more valuable. In any case, for these reasons he needed to alter the work, and so he removed those pages which would have overtly pointed to 17th century, and left those which were not so identifiable as from that era.

7. heavy wear and water damage. Reduced yield and sales opportunities.
 
Well I would argue quite the opposite, re "yield" (value) and opportunity to sell. Of course if considered fake, it would not sell. All forgers try to match the wear, damage and dirt which would match the age of the item, exactly because of value and sales.

8. historical process.

I'm not sure what you are referring to.

9. c-14 analysis ca. 1400-1440.

Well you know my view on this, but in short, the C14 dating actually points to forgery, not genuine, because the bulk of expert opinion does not match this dating.

10. no knowledge of the age of the parchment at the time of purchase. Lottery for the drawings.

Same as my answer for #9: It is said, and I disagree, that not having knowledge of the age of the parchment means "genuine". But I say it is the opposite, for if he could tell the age of the parchment, or thought others would have that ability, he would have picked either 17th century parchment (somewhere smack in the middle of most content), or 13th century, to match Roger Bacon's time. He would NOT have picked 15th century parchment, which match nothing... well, until the dating began to sway opinions there (tail wagging the dog again).

11. writes and destroys known names. (Tepenece). Loss of value?

Well the You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view., a huge issue. But the actual timeline of this is that he actually could read that signature at first: I found the picture of this in the Voynich archives, curiously labeled, "To be kept- Rotograph without autograph before it was chemically restored". So his, and the, official opinion about the signature is that he was not trying to destroy it, but to reveal it. But I do wonder if he was trying to destroy it, when shifting the authorship of the work... but he realized he failed, and needed to then You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. for the work, to better allow for the "signature" after all. I mean, he suddenly placed the manuscript into the Court of Rudolf with the Marci letter, then later, with the "Dee Myth".

12. invents new script and possible text. With different writing styles.

If you You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view., known and revealed forgeries, one of the primary ways they are revealed is through errors in the meaning of the text. And the longer a forgery becomes, the greater that risk. I would be a safer way to go, for any forger, to have no meaning at all. No meaning, no possibility of error.

13. everything for a poorly preserved notebook or study book.
and more.....

... worth about $25 million today, and Voynich wanted well over a million, in today's dollars, for it. Poorly preserved or not, the stakes, the value, was very, very high. And this would be a fantastic salary for all but the wealthiest in the world, for only a couple of months work.

Anyway, those are my opinions on the issues you posed.

Rich.